RE: [xri] Versioning ... was: Re: [xri] PLEASE REVIEW: Draft ofXRI-As-Relative-URI page

[Robin Cover <robin@oasis-open.org>]

AWWW = Architecture of the World Wide Web

http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/

-- rcc

Robin Cover
OASIS, Director of Information Services
Editor, Cover Pages and XML Daily Newslink
http://xml.coverpages.org/
http://xml.coverpages.org/newsletterArchive.html
+1 972-296-1783


On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Barnhill, William [USA] wrote:

> For the lurkers amongst us, AWWW = what again?
>
>
> From: John Bradley
> Sent: Wed 10/15/2008 12:47 PM
> To: Nika Jones
> Cc: OASIS XRI TC
> Subject: Re: [xri] Versioning ... was: Re: [xri] PLEASE REVIEW: Draft of 
> XRI-As-Relative-URI page
>
>
> Using the accept header is something that we cant do because of AWWW.  We 
> don't currently use the accept header for the proxy for anything other than 
> service selection.
>
> I am not opposed to having the proxy support multiple syntaxes for entering a 
> XRI.
>
>
> =jbradley
>
> On 15-Oct-08, at 9:42 AM, Nika Jones wrote:
>
>
> Both ideas make sense (headers/parameters) ... the only thing would be for 
> people handwriting the HXRI (and would that acronym need to change for other 
> schemes?) Most of the time I can see a client taking a native XRI and 
> resolving it through the proxy (so the XRI to HXRI would be automated)... 
> however there may be time when a person needs to write the HXRI by hand...
>
> like OpenID... if I find that a client doesn't support native XRI (tisk, tisk 
> *smile*) then I can type in the HXRI so that it conforms to the "http://*"; 
> that the OpenID client seems to be looking for, and that usually works. So 
> for hand writing the XRI to an HXRI it seems easier to remember ( 
> *.{TLD}/xri{version}:{XRI} )
>
>
> example.net/xri2:=example or example.net/xri3:@example
>
>
> than
>
>
> example.net/=example?v=2
>
>
> which is like ( *.{TLD}/{xri}{version-parameter} ) ... we'd also have very 
> little HTTP Headers control when hand writing HXRIs. I don't want to dwell on 
> it, but I just wanted to give some background as to where I was coming from.
>
>
> Nika
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 15, 2008, at 7:11 AM, John Bradley wrote:
>
>
> For the http: proxy binding the XRI version should probably be in the query 
> parameters.  That is where we specify returning XRD or XRDS etc.
>
> Putting it in the base URI is going to cause problems.
>
>
> =jbradley
>
> On 15-Oct-08, at 6:32 AM, Barnhill, William [USA] wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Just a couple of quick thoughts:
> .. XRI resolution should be adaptable to non-http. I realize that's not 
> currently supported, but should be IMHO. Please be careful that the changes 
> you are making based on W3C feedback do not lock it totally to HTTP.
> .. That said, if for the majority using HTTP you don't just have the URL to 
> play with. The accepts header seems a good use for the version (the client 
> specifies the versions it understands, the proxy returns the highest version 
> the client understands). This also means URL links people have coded/made 
> will not break when you version ('Cool URLs' and all that).
> Thanks,
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Nika Jones
> Sent: Tue 10/14/2008 11:54 PM
> To: OASIS XRI TC
> Subject: Re: [xri] PLEASE REVIEW: Draft of XRI-As-Relative-URI page
>
>
> With XRI 3.0 around the corner, would it be prudent to add a version to the 
> sub-scheme?
>
>
> http://proxy.example.com/v2/=example
>
>
> or
>
> http://proxy.example.com/xri:v2:@example*mint
>
>
> Nika
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 14, 2008, at 6:09 PM, John Bradley wrote:
>
>
> I think the idea is to move away from beginning the domain name with xri and 
> move to making the significant part the tld.
>
> For sftp we ned to sort out what the encoding rules are for the binding. 
> Normally you would be adding query parameters to the URI as well so encoding 
> for ftp may be a challenge.
>
>
> =jbradley
>
>
>
>
>
> On 14-Oct-08, at 6:00 PM, njones@ouno.com wrote:
>
>
> All:
>
> Does the XRI need to also be the first path... It's written as, "first
> character of the path," so is it the first character of the first path?
>
> would it be more appropriate to write it
>
> *.{TLD}/{XRI}
>
> where {TLD} is any Top Level Domain (.net, .com, .org, etc.) and the
> {XRI}is any valid XRI?
>
> Also for FTP (and FTPS and SFTP I presume) how does the resolution happen?
> Would you need a special server listening to port 21 or 990? Or am I
> getting confused as to where the FTP is placed. Is the following valid:
> ftp://xri.net/@example*run
>
> Nika
>
>
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:05:31 -0700, "Drummond Reed"
> <drummond.reed@cordance.net> wrote:
>
> XRI TC Members and Observers:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Per my action item from the last telecon, I have posted a first draft
>
> wiki
>
> page describing the XRI-As-Relative-URI proposal to:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>         http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriAsRelativeUri
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The next step is for TC members to review and comment on this page. As
>
> always, being a wiki, feel free to just go in and edit the page. Or, if
>
> you
>
> prefer, send feedback or question to the list.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The goal is to incorporate any feedback by Wednesday so we can begin
>
> sending
>
> messages to the W3C TAG public mailing list to solicit feedback there
>
> before
>
> our next telecon this coming Thursday.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> =Drummond
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php